+ CrossPosted in: POLITICS
 + CrossPosted in: CANACHAT
 + CrossPosted in: CANPOL
 + CrossPosted in: DEBATE
 + CrossPosted in: GODLIKE
 + CrossPosted in: POL_INC
Hello All,

Message from the Editors of FREE INQUIRY  
 
 
 
  The Immorality of the War Against Iraq  
 
FREE INQUIRY magazine does not endorse political candidates nor political
parties. We recognize the wide diversity of political viewpoints among
secular humanists. We do, however, take positions concerning two vital
issues: first, we support humanist ethical principles on grounds
independent of religion; and second, we defend the separation of church and
state.

By both these standards, we face an urgent crisis in the United States
today, for the Religious Right has virtually captured the Bush
administration. Increasingly, its moral ideology is that of Evangelical
Christianity. This is seen directly by its impact on foreign policy, with
strong overtone of self-righteous moral indignation U.S. foreign policy is
guided by the sense that we face a battle between "good and
evil." This can be read in the speeches of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice,
Wolfowitz, and others. In its extreme form, the War on Terrorism smacks of
a Holy Religious War against Islam.

As we go to press, the War on Terrorism has morphed into an impending war
against Iraq. (War may have erupted by the time you read these words.)
President Bush has repeatedly condemned Saddam Hussein as evil (surely he
is no angel, but that is true of many world leaders). Bush has further
demanded the disarming of Iraq and the replacement of its government with a
puppet regime. We object to this war on moral grounds.

What especially bothers us is the crescendo of wardrum-beats advocating,
however incoherently, a preemptive first strike. This marks a radical
reversal in American foreign policy. Never before has the U.S. struck first
in the absence of an immediate threat. One might conceivably justify
preemptive war, but only when there is imminent danger of attack by a
threatening adversary. Iraq currently does not fit into this category.
Defeated in the Gulf War of 1991, its population impoverished, its economy
in shambles, constantly bombarded by American and British aircraft, Iraq
hardly poses a threat to the safety of the United States.

If the United States reserves the right to engage in preemptive warfare
(even nuclear), what are we to say about the confrontation between India
and Pakistan_would they or anyone else be justified in resorting to the
same pretext? We believe in a world in which there are certain norms of
established international conduct and in which one power (in this case a
hyperpower such as the United States) does not arrogate to itself the right
to dictate acceptable behavior across the globe.

We thoroughly approve of the administration's earlier decision (under the
influence at that time of Colin Powell, who has since become more hawkish)
that UN inspectors return to Iraq and that retaliatory measures be taken
only if explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council. We do not see the
need for war, for we believe that the best method of resolving
international conflicts is by the negotiation of differences. We thus agree
with efforts to disarm Iraq peacefully.

Obviously, current U.S. policies threaten to undermine the entire fabric of
collective security so carefully developed by the world community after the
Second World War. As a result of our policies, will the United Nations be
rendered impotent like the League of Nations, unable to resolve
international conflicts? If so, this could have tragic implications for the
future of humankind.

Indeed, the Bush administration's recent policy choices, such as its
refusal to sign the Kyoto Treaty or to accept the jurisdiction of the World
Court, illustrates an increasingly unilateral chauvinistic character.

Mr. Bush expresses his reasons for war in high-flown rhetoric about
defending ourselves from the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein.
Interestingly, his speeches are drafted by Evangelical speechwriters (such
as Michael Gerson), and they express a dismaying level of religious
imagery. They convert the Presidency into a bully pulpit for God, which
simultaneously masks underlying imperialist economic ambitions while it
suggests divine sanction for American policy. We wonder whether the real
motive in all this is oil, for Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in
the world; and we suspect that the underlying goal of the United States and
Britain is to replace the Iraqi oil contracts bestowed upon France and
Russia with new ones benefiting themselves.

There is one measure the president has recommended which we thoroughly
support: the decision to provide economic assistance to African and
Caribbean countries suffering high rates of AIDS. Some 15 million Africans
have already died from the disease, and there are an estimated three
million new cases a year. There is a desperate need for medicines; and the
president is to be applauded for proposing financial assistance to purchase
them.

Will his administration also undertake the preventive measures that
Africans so desperately need, namely, contraceptive education and the free
distribution of condoms to the millions who cannot afford them? Or will the
administration's dominant theological-moral position cause such assistance
to be choked off, as it was in the past, in the name of a
"higher" religious morality, which instead urges abstinence and
offers no promise of reducing AIDS transmission? The first measure that the
administration adopted upon Bush's inauguration was to cut off all
contraceptive aid for the developing world, fearing that it might lead to
abortion. In this area as in others the foreign policy of the United States
suffers from its being dominated by a theologically driven conception of
morality, and this has had dire consequences for the entire world.

Parenthetically, we wish to express our approval of the uprisings among
students and other dissidents in Iran, and especially to commend the views
of Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah, who courageously demands
democracy, human rights, and a secular state in a future Iran. Iran has
suffered a religious Inquisition at the hands of the Ayatollahs; and it is
encouraging that there are today genuine calls for secular democracy. Were
that to take root in Iran, what an enormous difference it could make in the
Middle East.

Paul Kurtz, Editor-in-Chief
Tom Flynn, Editor
Norm Allen, Deputy Editor
Tim Madigan, Chair, Editorial Board


 
" the Religious Right has virtually captured the Bush administration"

"We object to this war on moral grounds"

"a preemptive first strike" "marks a radical reversal in
American foreign policy"

====



--- DevilPoint  6.66